The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has stated that issuing substandard and unclear bills by traders and service providers on various products purchased by consumers amounted to ‘deficiency of service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ as per the Consumer Protection Act.
The commission, comprising D.B. Binu, president, and members, including V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., made the observation in its order dated November 27, 2023 on a complaint filed by a lawyer based in Ernakulam seeking compensation and action against a laptop manufacturing company for its refusal to replace a laptop which had developed technical issues within a few months of its purchase.
The commission found that the tax invoice bill dated December 16, 2020 for the product purchased from a retailer at Thripunithura was not legible. The bill, which was electronically-generated, was produced using inferior-quality ink on low-grade paper. The quality of printing was substandard, resulting in prints that were not clear or readable, it said.
The commission order quoted an order issued by the Kerala State Department of Consumer Affairs on July 6, 2019 that made it mandatory for all government, public, and private entities to provide bills that are both durable and legible. Inferior-quality bills will prevent customers from lodging complaints about services or products as these are prone to damage or fading.
The order said that the details of the mandatory elements of every invoice, bill, cash memo or receipt for goods or services must include the seller’s name and address, a unique serial number, date of issue, consumer’s name, description of goods or services, quantity of goods, shipping address, taxable value, discounts and tax rate.
The commission asked the Bengaluru office of the company to either replace the faulty laptop or reimburse the full purchase price. The retailer has to issue legible and durable bills prepared using quality ink on good-quality paper. They have to pay a compensation of ₹50,000 for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices committed by them, it said.
The order stated that the company and the retailer did not challenge the allegations.
